I hate PzIVs

[raz_atoth]

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the Pz IV is clearly outclassed by all Allied armor. Even in 1945. Granted, it won't go par to par with a IS-2 at 1000m, but it will do a good job at killing pretty much any medium tank the allies can throw against it.

I guess when it comes to Pz IV vs. Shermans is the below snippet:

All else being equal, a group of M4A3 Shermans should have a modest advantage head-to-head at 300m against an equal-sized group of PzIVH.

Here is why. While the German 75mm gun is better than the US 75mm, the Sherman has superior frontal armor. The PzIVH has an obsolete turret front and virtually no armor sloping anywhere. Further, its frontal armor is face-hardened which is a liability against the capped armor-piercing ammunition (APCBC) used by the western Allies in 1944.

Let's first examine the PzIVH shooting at the M4A3 Sherman straight on, non oblique hits:

M4A3 Sherman frontal armor:
76mm @ 30° turret (treated as 69mm due to mediocre armor manufacturing quality)
89mm @ 0° gun mantlet (treated as 80mm)
51mm @ 56° upper hull (treated as 46mm)
51mm @ 15°(avg) lower hull (treated as 46mm)

German PzIVH (75mm KwK40 L/48) armor penetration (average) at 300m at various armor slopes:
0°: 127mm
15°: 120mm
30°: 99mm
56°: 53mm

Hit results:
M4A3 Sherman turret: easily penetrates (120mm vs 69mm)
M4A3 Sherman gun mantlet: easily penetrates (127mm vs 80mm)
M4A3 Sherman upper hull: usually but not always penetrates; majority of killing energy absorbed by armor (53mm vs 46mm)
M4A3 Sherman lower hull: easily penetrates (120mm vs 46mm)

Summary:
If the Sherman is hit straight on in the turret or lower hull it's in bad shape, but if it's hit in the upper hull (aka glacis plate) it has a decent chance to survive. Not great, but decent. And the glacis plate is the largest and most central of the potential target areas so many hits will occur there.

Now let's examine the M4A3 Sherman shooting at the PzIVH straight on, non oblique hits:

PzIVH-late frontal armor (all face-hardened, which is a liability versus US APCBC shells -- this is very important!):

50mm @ 10° turret
80mm @ 10° upper hull
80mm @ 15° lower hull

M4A3 Sherman (75mm M3 L/40, firing APCBC) armor penetration versus face-hardened armor (average) at 300m at various armor slopes:
10°: 96mm
15°: 93mm

Hit results:
PzIVH-late turret: easily penetrates (96mm vs 50mm)
PzIVH-late upper hull: penetrates, some killing energy absorbed by armor (96mm vs 80mm)
PzIVH-late lower hull: penetrates, some killing energy absorbed by armor (93mm vs 80mm)

Summary:
PzIVH armor cannot withstand a straight on hit from a Sherman anywhere. Its best hope is for a hull hit where some of the energy is absorbed, but often this won't be enough to save the tank.

When oblique angles are taken into effect the picture changes. The more the shot deviates from a straight on hit the greater the chance of deflection instead of penetration. Sloped and rounded armor enhances this chance more so than vertically aligned plates. If the chance of a penetration from straight on is marginal, then a less optimal angle of impact likely means the round does not penetrate. When examining the numbers above, it's pretty clear that the Sherman is far more likely to survive a hit from a PzIV than the PzIV is to survive a hit from a Sherman.


…there are some really deeply entrenched assumptions about what German (and American) equipment should and should not be capable of. And yet when we dig down a little, it seems that these hardened assumptions are not based on anything real.

The above is a perfect example. The assumption is that PzIV = Sherman. Case closed?

Well, the assumption is wrong. These two tanks are not quite equivalent. They have significantly different strengths and weaknesses. In some situations I'd want a PzIV, and in others a Sherman. And at 300m head to head, give me the M4A3 please. The armor on the PzIV is obsolete by 1944. Even to American guns, it just can't hold up, and Combat Mission reflects this.